"Doug Gregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Of course, one could use TREE_CODE to see through the difference > between these two, e.g., > > #define TREE_CODE(NODE) > ((enum tree_code) (NODE)->base.code == LANG_TYPE? > (enum tree_code)((TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC (NODE)->base.subcode + > LAST_AND_UNUSED_TREE_CODE)) > : (enum tree_code) (NODE)->base.code) > > Then, the opposite for TREE_SET_CODE: > #define TREE_SET_CODE(NODE, VALUE) > ((VALUE) >= LAST_AND_USED_TREE_CODE)? > ((NODE)->base.code = LANG_TYPE, get_type_lang_specific > (NODE)->base.subcode = (VALUE) - LAST_AND_USED_TREE_CODE) > : ((NODE)->base.code = (VALUE)) > > Yuck.
I would use 256 instead of LAST_AND_USED_TREE_CODE, but other than that it doesn't seem so yucky to me. Maybe my sense of taste has become degraded. Ian
